The California Senate Public Safety Committee is set to hear arguments on the …

Share this story

On Tuesday, the California Senate Public Safety Committee is hearing arguments on the California Location Privacy Bill (SB 1434). It's a new bill that would provide more consumer protection for law enforcement access to mobile phones. As currently written, it would require a warrant before police gain access to location information, and would also require that mobile phone companies disclose how often and why they are giving up this information as a way to monitor proper use of this law.

In an April 12, 2012 letter addressed (PDF) to State Senator Mark Leno (author of the bill), CTIA says it is opposed to SB 1434 because it may "create confusion for wireless providers and hamper their response to legitimate law enforcement investigations." The group also states that "[the bill will] create unduly burdensome and costly mandates on providers and their employees and are unnecessary as they will not serve wireless consumers."

Earlier this month, the ACLU said it received over 5,500 pages from 200 local law enforcement agencies about their tracking policies. The organization concluded that "while cell phone tracking is routine, few agencies consistently obtain warrants. Importantly, however, some agencies do obtain warrants, showing that law enforcement agencies can protect Americans' privacy while also meeting law enforcement needs." In short, it seems like law enforcement can stay within the law, even when it takes the trouble to get a warrant—how is that confusing?

On the financial side, CTIA’s argument is laughable. Just to give one example—Sprint is a $7 billion company, and it charges law enforcement a $30 monthly flat fee to provide location data on an unlimited basis. And, keep in mind: in 2009, Wired reported that during a 13-month period, Sprint disclosed that data 8 million times. So how exactly is this new bill providing a "costly mandate?"

Mobile phone companies can give up this data millions of times per year, but really can’t be bothered to tell us when or why? That’s ridiculous.

Share this story

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is out now from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar